that the Project will significantly impact the environment (League for Protection of Oakland’s Historic Resources v. City of Oakland (1997) 52 Cal. App.4th 896, 904.). A public agency must prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence supports a fair argument that a proposed project “may have a significant effect on the environment” (Protect Niles v. City of Fremont (2018) 25 Cal.App5th 1129, 1138-1139.).
This low threshold for the preparation of an EIR, and a “preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review” is met here (Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322, 332.).
The city has discretion over the project and should require that the project be re-designed at a minimum of 55 feet from the top of the bank of Los Trancos creek (in line with the neighboring home) or a wider setback, ideally 150 feet. If this wider buffer/setback is not feasible, the city must prepare an EIR to fully analyze and mitigate the impacts and to consider alternatives to the proposed size of the project and its location on the parcel. Alternatives for a smaller footprint, or potentially loss of a few trees, are likely to reduce the impacts on the riparian ecosystem of Los Trancos Creek and must be considered. Given California’s prolonged drought and regional aridification, a project with no swimming pool should also be considered to allow more space for relocation of the home further from the creek and for saving water.
1. Mapping of the project
The maps that are provided in the IS/MND are not detailed enough for the public to discern the location on the parcel where the development is proposed or how the delineation of 20 feet from top-of-the-bank was determined. Therefore, the public, regulators, and decision makers lack the ability to fully evaluate the project’s impacts or to make fully informed decisions.
Please recirculate the CEQA document and provide a map that clearly delineates the project elements, including structures, roads, and amenities, on the property. Please show the 20-foot setback from the top-of-the-bank. Please include Los Trancos Creek and public amenities such as roads and trails, and provide the map as an overlay on a satellite photo of the property. This should help ascertain that the project’s slope stability protection area extends to a point “20 feet landward from the top of bank or to a point measured at a ratio of 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) landward from the toe of bank, whichever is greater” (Palo Alto Stream Protection Ordinance).1
A map of the areas to be excavated (following the recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineering Study) should be provided.
A clear zoning map for this location is needed, to show the designation of this parcel and that of land surrounding it.
2. Biological resources
The Biological resources section of the IS/MND does not adequately describe the species that may be affected by the project. Chapter 14 of the Stanford Community Plan 2018 General Use Permit Biological report provides a better picture of the many species in the San Francisquito/Los Trancos watershed 1 https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/paloalto/latest/paloalto_ca/0-0-0-80331
2.3 2.4
2.5 29
ITEM 13
Attachment G Responses to
Comments on the Draft IS-MND
Item 13:
Page
326
Packet Page 756 of 792
September 19, 2022
(Section 3.1.1).2 All the species mentioned in this report, and the mitigation measures proposed to reduce impacts, should be considered comprehensively in a CEQA document for this project.
3. Wider riparian buffers are needed
The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board’s “Local Government Riparian Buffers in the San Francisco Bay Area” report3 establishes, “The riparian zone is an ecotone, or transition zone, between aquatic and terrestrial habitats. Because riparian zones contain both aquatic and terrestrial plant and animal species they have unusually high species diversity. Riparian zones are also important migratory corridors. A continuous buffer provides migratory and wildlife corridors, which are of particular value in protecting amphibians and waterfowl populations, as well as fish spawning and nursery areas. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California has lost 90 percent or more of its wetlands, which includes riparian communities. This is despite the fact that according to government biologists, riparian communities in the Western states, such as California, provide habitat for up to 80 percent of western wildlife species.”
Clearly, riparian ecosystems and buffers are critically important to animal movement, as well as to maintaining water quality in streams. The science is well established and is the reason why agencies regulate construction near streams, and why many agencies impose significant buffers, especially in open space areas. The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board’s “Local Government Riparian Buffers in the San Francisco Bay Area” report states, “Riparian zones perform many ecological functions important to enhancing water quality, water quantity, biodiversity, habitat connectivity, and flood capacity. The stream channel itself conveys runoff, supports aquatic plants and animals, provides groundwater recharge, and supplies water to trees and plants that typically thrive in the riparian zone.” The report cites several studies that show the importance of adequate riparian corridor building setbacks. “Buffer Distances Estimates of effective buffer distances for sediment and nutrient filtration vary, but most of the scientific studies suggest distances between 50 and 100 feet for this purpose (Jones & Stokes 2002). Although any buffer distance from the top of the bank is helpful for maintaining channel stability, a minimum 33-foot riparian buffer is required for contributing to a significant reduction in sediment levels.” The “buffer distances in the region vary greatly, and it is likely that many were not chosen based upon specific buffer thresholds designed to satisfy water quality considerations. A scientifically based approach can help quantify buffer-induced benefits to water quality, thereby allowing the Board to more easily quantify TMDL reduction amounts when communicating with the region cities.” Reducing total maximum daily loads (TMDL) is critical for salmonid bearing streams including Los Trancos Creek. This is why Santa Clara County and the Santa Clara Habitat Agency, based on extensive research, require a buffer of 150 feet from waterways in locations and situations similar to this project siting. The Santa Clara County General Plan Policy R-RC 37 states, “Lands near creeks, streams, and freshwater marshes shall be considered to be in a protected buffer area consisting of…150 feet from the top bank on both sides where the creek or stream is predominantly in its natural state” to protect creeks and 3 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/publications_forms/documents/bufferreport1204.pdf 2 https://stgenpln.blob.core.windows.net/document/SU_2018GUP_App_Tab14_Biological.pdf
2.6 30
ITEM 13
Attachment G Responses to
Comments on the Draft IS-MND
Item 13:
Page
327
Packet Page 757 of 792
September 19, 2022
riparian areas from “adverse impacts of adjacent development, including impacts upon habitat, from sedimentation, biochemical, thermal and aesthetic impacts.” To avoid significant unmitigable impacts, Stanford’s Community Plan Policy RC-7, which addresses buffer zones along creeks, contains a cross reference to Santa Clara County General Plan policy R-RC 37.
Palo Alto’s outdated Stream Protection Ordinance requires a minimal setback of 20 feet, which is why the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Policy N3.3 Program N3.3.1 seeks to update this ordinance, expressing a desire for a 150-ft buffer in locations west of Foothill Expressway:
Program N3.3.1 Update the Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance to explore 150 feet as the desired stream setback along natural creeks in open space and rural areas west of Foothill Expressway. This 150-foot setback would prohibit the siting of buildings and other structures, impervious surfaces, outdoor activity areas and ornamental landscaped areas within 150 feet of the top of a creek bank. Allow passive or intermittent outdoor activities and pedestrian, equestrian and bicycle pathways along natural creeks where there are adequate setbacks to protect the natural riparian environment. Within the setback area, provide a border of native riparian vegetation at least 30 feet along the creek bank.
The update to the Stream Protection Ordinance should establish: Design recommendations for development or redevelopment of sites within the setback, consistent with basic creek habitat objectives and significant net improvements in the condition of the creek. Conditions under which single-family property and existing development are exempt from the 150-foot setback. Appropriate setbacks and creek conservation measures for undeveloped parcels.
The intent of the Comprehensive Plan is clear. It seeks to create adequate, protective setbacks and design recommendations along creeks west of Foothills Expressway. While a 150-foot setback is cited as appropriate for new development west of Foothill Expressway, the program notes that single-family residential development can be exempt from this larger setback. Although the program states that narrower setbacks can be allowed, it does not state that minimal setbacks of 20 feet is ever appropriate or recommended. We maintain that "can be" is not the same as "shall be” and is not determinative.
Instead, "can be" indicates discretion, and a 20-foot setback is inappropriate in this location, and will cause significant, unavoidable and permanent harm to Los Trancos creek and the San Francisquito creek watershed.
Staff proposes that the property is “relatively narrow” (page 6 of the Staff Report, PTC) stating, “the widest part of the house (measured between the creek and the street), the property is approximately 226 ft wide” and “The first 90 feet (approximately) measured from the street property line is dedicated to tree protection. An 150 ft creek setback would render this property undevelopable or result in a need to remove existing mature protected trees.” We do not see 226 feet or even 136 feet (226-90=136) as too narrow to accommodate a home. The City has the discretion and should require a smaller footprint of the development, a change in the design to allow wider setback, or allow the removal of a few trees to safeguard the integrity of the creek’s riparian corridor.
2.7 2.8
31 ITEM 13
Attachment G Responses to
Comments on the Draft IS-MND
Item 13:
Page
328
Packet Page 758 of 792
September 19, 2022
In addition, this property is zoned Streamside Open Space (SOS). Palo Alto’s zoning code provides, “This designation is intended to preserve and enhance corridors of riparian vegetation along streams. Hiking, biking and riding trails may be developed in the streamside open space. The corridor will generally vary in width up to 200 feet on either side of the center line of the creek.” The Staff Report says, “This designation does not discuss residential use, in the way that the Open Space/Controlled Development (OS/CD designation) designation does. The OS/CD designation allows 1-2 dwelling units per acre.”4 The SOS designation seems to allow no residential development. The proposed development is not consistent with preserving and enhancing corridors of riparian vegetation along streams as intended by the SOS designation.
Lastly, The Palo Alto Stream Protection ordinance specifies development at,“20 feet landward from the top of bank or to a point measured at a ratio of 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) landward from the toe of bank, whichever is greater”. The Geotechnical Engineering Study (Appendix C) states that the house is located “80 feet from Los Trancos creek” and bases its recommendations on that measurement. Is the creek channel or the center line of the creek at a distance of 60 feet away from the top of the bank? If the creek channel is located 60 feet away from the top of the bank, then the setback required by the Palo Alto Stream Protection ordinance is 120 feet.
4. Consultation with NOAA Fisheries and CDFW is needed
4.1. Steelhead and other fish
Los Trancos Creek runs along the project site. Since water is available most of the year, the creek is home to Los Trancos Creek is home to fish such as California roach, Sacramento sucker, threespine stickleback, prickly sculpin and rainbow trout (resident). The creek is designated Critical Habitat for steelhead trout. “Critical habitat” is defined as the specific areas that are essential to the conservation of a federally listed species, and that may require special management consideration or protection. Critical habitat is determined using the best available scientific information about the physical and biological needs of the species. These needs, which are referred to as “primary constituent elements,” include space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior; food, water, light, air, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological needs; cover or shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, and rearing of offspring; and habitat that is protected from disturbance or is representative of the historical geographic and ecological distribution of a species.
The IS/MND proposed that a 20-foot creek setback suffices to protect the species from disturbance yet state, “implementation of the proposed project may result in direct or indirect impacts to steelhead at all life stages.”
The Biological Assessment states, “The results and conclusions presented herein represent our best professional judgment but do not represent determinations of the NMFS and CDFW as these agencies 4 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/planning-and- transportation-commission/2022/ptc-08.31.2022-575-los-trancos.pdf
2.9 2.10
2.11 32
ITEM 13
Attachment G Responses to
Comments on the Draft IS-MND
Item 13:
Page
329
Packet Page 759 of 792
September 19, 2022
have ultimate jurisdiction over the steelhead through administration and enforcement of the FESA and CESA, respectively.”
Palo Alto should require consultation with NMFS and CDFW and ensure that all the requirements for steelhead habitat are not impacted significantly. In addition to direct impacts due to the diminutive buffer of 20 feet, impacts of access roads, parking, and light should be addressed and mitigated. For example, outdoor lighting (especially lighting with correlated color temperature of over 2400 Kelvin), can impact local aquatic insects directly and through the reduction of insects and food availability to the fish.5 Components from tire dust can kill salmon fry.6
4.2. Mountain Lion
The mountain lion has recently been designated as a state candidate for listing under the threatened and endangered species list.7 The Central Coast North population of mountain lions contains the project area. Connectivity is crucial for expanding genetic diversity in this population, and a great amount of effort is invested in restoring movement corridors for this species. Creek corridors are important for migration in this species, especially as migration routes are threatened by development and climate change.8 Studies of nocturnal patterns of movement suggest mountain lions tend to avoid areas with human disturbance including residential developments that introduce noise and activities as well as light at night.
4.3. The San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat
This species is endemic to the San Francisco Bay area and is listed as a Species of Special Concern in California. The proposed mitigation – dismantling and translocation of middens – has not been shown to be effective at protecting the woodrats.9 There is no evidence that woodrats use dismantled relocated middens and the survival of translocated woodrats is unknown. Please review and propose effective mitigation measures. Please use the mitigations offered in the Stanford Community Plan.
5. The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
The project is inconsistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. As discussed above, the diminutive setback requirements of the project do not provide sufficient protection to Los Trancos Creek, and, thus, the project is inconsistent with:
● Goal N-3: Conservation of both natural and channelized creeks and riparian areas as open space amenities, natural habitat areas and elements of community design. 9 http://wildlifeprofessional.org/western/tws_abstract_detail.php?abstractID=2424&k=I/a/NHKlFi8qQ 8 https://www.washington.edu/news/2019/02/12/assessing-riverside-corridors-the-escape-routes-for-animals- under-climate-change-in-the-northwest/
7 https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Mammals/Mountain-Lion#562331240-are-mountains-lions-listed-as-a- threatened-or-endangered-species
6 https://www.science.org/content/article/common-tire-chemical-implicated-mysterious-deaths-risk-salmon 5 https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2688-8319.12053
2.12 2.13
2.14 33
ITEM 13
Attachment G Responses to
Comments on the Draft IS-MND
Item 13:
Page
330
Packet Page 760 of 792
September 19, 2022
● Policy N-3.4: Recognize that riparian corridors are valued environmental resources whose integrity provides vital habitat for fish, birds, plants and other wildlife, and carefully monitor and preserve these corridors.
● Policy N-3.1: All creeks are valuable resources for natural habitats, connectivity, community design, and flood control, and need different conservation and enhancement strategies.
Recognize the different characteristics along creeks in Palo Alto, including natural creek segments in the city’s open space and rural areas, primarily west of Foothill Expressway; creek segments in developed areas that retain some natural characteristics; and creek segments that have been channelized. Pursue opportunities to enhance riparian setbacks along urban and rural creeks as properties are improved or redeveloped.
In addition, it is likely to have a significant, unavoidable impact on wildlife movement. ● Policy N-1.5: Preserve and protect the Bay, marshlands, salt ponds, sloughs, creeks, and other natural water or wetland areas as open space, functioning habitats, and elements of a larger, interconnected wildlife corridor, consistent with the Baylands Master Plan, as periodically amended, which is incorporated here by reference
● Policy N-1.6: Preserve and protect the foothills and hillside areas, recognizing their unique value as natural ecosystems and interconnected wildlife corridors.
The project is located in an area that is important to wildlife connectivity between open spaces areas, including Palo Alto’s Foothills Park and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Hawthorns Open Space. Los Trancos Creek, its tributaries and its function in the San Francisquito creek watershed, require special attention to wildlife connectivity. The IS/MND does not discuss, analyze or substantiate its finding of no significant impact.
Due to the diminutive setback from Los Trancos Creek, we believe that the introduction of human activity during the day and lighting (including outdoor lighting) at night have the potential to interfere substantially with the movement of every native resident and migratory fish and wildlife species that occur in the region, and potentially impede the use of native fish and bat nursery sites. The 20-foot setback also means that outdoor lighting cannot achieve the ambition of Program N3.3.3: For all creeks, update the Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance to minimize impacts on wildlife by “Requiring careful design of lighting surrounding natural riparian corridors to maximize the distance between nighttime lighting and riparian corridors and direct lighting away from the riparian corridor.” A wider setback should help achieve this goal.
6. Bird friendly design
Bird populations are declining in North America.10 While there are multiple drivers to this decline, collision with glass is considered one of the primary causes of migratory bird mortality. In North 10 https://www.science.org/content/article/three-billion-north-american-birds-have-vanished-1970-%20surveys- show
2.15 2.16
2.17 34
ITEM 13
Attachment G Responses to
Comments on the Draft IS-MND
Item 13:
Page
331
Packet Page 761 of 792
September 19, 2022
America, it is estimated that hundreds of millions of birds die each year as a result of striking glass walls, doors and windows.11 This is a cumulative, significant impact. Bird collisions with glazed surfaces are especially critical in riparian corridors, and many jurisdictions have regulations in place to reduce and mitigate this hazard within 300-ft of riparian corridors and/or open space.12 The American Bird Conservancy (ABC) website is a great resource to learn about the devastating impacts of bird collisions and to find solutions to incorporate into architectural designs. Recently, ABC updated their website with new recommendations for Bird Friendly Building Design13 and a clarifying document that establishes what qualifies as Bird Friendly Glass. ABC provides primary elements of bird safe building design. These elements are especially critical near habitat areas such as water bodies and open space.
● Minimize use of glass
● Placing glass behind screening
● Using glass with inherent properties that reduce collisions, such as fritting.
In addition, ABC provides a Products and Solutions Database14 to evaluate bird safety glazing treatments.
Palo Alto requires bird friendly design for commercial buildings, but not for homes. Bird collisions, however, occur primarily (99%) at homes and low rise buildings.15 The proposed project is likely to contribute to cumulative impact on birds and should be required to apply bird safety measures.
7. Fire risks
The house is located in a fire-prone area. Most wildfires are caused by human activities.16 Combined with climate change and housing growth in the wildland-urban interface, fires have become larger and more destructive. We believe that analysis provided in the IS/MND is insufficient, and additional additional analysis and mitigations are needed to ensure that the environment is safe during construction and habituation of the proposed residence.
Insurance Commissioner of California Ricardo Lara’s report last year17 called for policies that would stop construction in hazardous areas. Insurers are dropping policies in wildfire areas18 shifting the burden to 18 https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/west/2020/12/04/592788.htm 17 http://www.insurance.ca.gov/01-consumers/180-climate-change/upload/Draft-Climate-Insurance- Recommendations.pdf
16 https://www.colorado.edu/asmagazine/2020/09/22/humans-ignite-almost-every-wildfire-threatens-homes 15 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259562592_Bird-building_collisions_in_the_United_States_ Estimates_of_annual_mortality_and_species_vulnerability 14 https://abcbirds.org/glass-collisions/products-database/ 13 https://abcbirds.org/glass-collisions/model-ordinance/ and https://abcbirds.org/glass collisions/resources/ 12 https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/community-development/planning/non-residential-mixed- use-development/bird-safe-and-dark-sky
11 https://academic.oup.com/condor/article/116/1/8/5153098 and https://bioone.org/journals/the-condor/volume-116/issue-1/CONDOR-13-090.1/Birdbuilding-collisions-in-the-Unit ed-States--Estimates-of-annual/10.1650/CONDOR-13-090.1.full
2.18 35
ITEM 13
Attachment G Responses to
Comments on the Draft IS-MND
Item 13:
Page
332
Packet Page 762 of 792
September 19, 2022
taxpayers via the state through court orders.19 New housing built in the path of wildfires increases liability for the state. The City should evaluate the concern that new residences in this area will increase the risk of wildfire in the Palo Alto foothills area.
According to the IS/MND, the nearest Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) is located approximately 1 mile northwest of the project site near Portola Valley (Cal Fire 2022). This is not a significant distance away from the hazard severity zone given wind driven fires in California20 and in the western United States, where climate change has doubled the amount of land damaged by wildfires between 1985 and 2015.21 NASA’s report, “The Effects of Climate Change,” states, "The potential future effects of global climate change include more frequent wildfires, longer periods of drought in some regions, and an increase in the duration and intensity of tropical storms." Indeed, it is expected that the amount of properties burned in CA will grow according to a study by the First Street Foundation when "about 40% of the state have at least “moderate” risk of burning in a wildfire some time in the next 30 years”.22
Thank you for granting us an extension for commenting, and please do not hesitate to contact us if you have questions.
Respectfully,
Shani Kleinhaus, Ph.D.
Environmental Advocate
Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society
Gladwyn D’Souza
Conservation Committee Chair
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
22 https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/fires/article261495002.html 21 https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
20 https://firesafemarin.org/prepare-yourself/red-flag-warnings/diablo-winds/ 19 https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/california-s-insurer-of- last-resort-faces-fire-coverage-challenges-after-ruling-65646785 36 ITEM 13
Attachment G Responses to
Comments on the Draft IS-MND
Item 13:
Page
333
Packet Page 763 of 792
City of Palo Alto
575 Los Trancos Road Residential Project Responses to Comments on the Draft IS-MND
Final Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration
Letter 2
COMMENTER: Shani Kleinhaus, Ph.D., Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, and Gladwyn D’Souza, Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
DATE: September 19, 2022
Response 2.1
The commenters claim that the proposed project would result in significant, unavoidable, and permanent impacts on the environment, especially but not exclusively to biological resources.
This comment serves as an introduction to the following specific comments; please see responses
2.3 through 2.18 for responses to the commenters’ specific comments in this regard.
Response 2.2
The commenters state that the Los Trancos Creek is one of the few remaining salmonid streams in the Peninsula and the South Bay is designated Critical Habitat for steelhead trout, and creek provides wildlife connectivity linkage to most common and rare wildlife species, including mountain lions. The commenters also state that the proposed project is located between two open space areas in Palo Alto (Foothills Park) and Portola Valley (Hawthorns property of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space), and that proposed development has the potential to impact fish and disrupt movement through a key wildlife riparian ecosystem and wildlife corridor. The commenters claim that a “fair argument” exists that the proposed project would significantly impact the environment.
This comment discusses the project context and serves as an introduction to specific comments to follow. Please see response to Comment 1.4 above and responses 2.3 through 2.18 below. As demonstrated in the responses and in the IS-MND, the proposed project would not result in significant and unavoidable impacts and an environmental impact report (EIR) is not required.
Response 2.3
The commenters request that the City of Palo Alto require the proposed project to be re-designed at a minimum of 55 feet from the top of the bank of Los Trancos creek, and state an opinion that if a wider buffer/setback is not feasible, an EIR should be prepared. The commenters express an opinion that alternatives for a smaller footprint, or loss of a few trees, would likely reduce impacts on the Los Trancos Creek riparian ecosystem. The commenters also express the opinion that the swimming pool should be omitted to allow for more space for the relocation of the proposed residence farther from the creek and to save water.
The Initial Study acknowledges that there could be potentially significant impacts; however, the project is generally designed to avoid impacts to riparian habitat and the Los Trancos Creek corridor, and the IS-MND includes mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. Please also see response to Comment 1.4 above. There would be no significant unavoidable or unmitigable impacts, and an EIR is not required. The commenters’ suggestions regarding the design of the project are noted and will be forwarded to the City’s decision makers. 37 ITEM 13
Attachment G Responses to
Comments on the Draft IS-MND
Item 13:
Page
334
Packet Page 764 of 792
City of Palo Alto
575 Los Trancos Road Residential Project Responses to Comments on the Draft IS-MND
Final Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration
Response 2.4
The commenters claim that maps provided in the IS-MND are not detailed enough and request the addition of a map that clearly delineates project elements including structures, roads, and amenities on the property; a map of the areas to be excavated; and a zoning map for the project location.
Please see Response 1.1 and the new figure that was added to the Final IS-MND showing key features as requested in the comment. No excavation is proposed within the creek buffer. A zoning map is not required in order to assess the project’s potential impacts on the environment; please see Section 11, Land Use and Planning, of the IS-MND for a discussion of the zoning designation of the subject property and impacts related to land use and zoning designations, regulations and policies.
Response 2.5
The commenters state an opinion that the Biological Resources section of the IS-MND does not adequately describe species affected by the project. The commenters claim that all of the species and mitigation measures mentioned in Chapter 14 of the Stanford Community Plan 2018 General Use Permit Biological Report (GUP BR) should be comprehensively considered in this IS-MND.
The GUP BR covers the entire Stanford campus and an area of open space to the south of campus that is larger than the campus itself. The Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) (Appendix A of the IS-MND) prepared for the IS reviewed resources occurring within a 9-quad area centered on the project site, as required by CEQA Guidelines. The BRA and IS-MND are not required to address all species or all habitats within the region or watershed, only the habitats present and those species that have a reasonable potential to occur at the project site. The GUP BR plan area has more habitats present and thus the potential to support many more species than the project site, and as a result directly addresses more resources than are appropriate for the proposed project. The measures in the GUP BR are not required to address project impacts and no changes to the IS-MND are warranted.
Response 2.6
The commenters request wider riparian buffers, citing Santa Clara County and the Santa Clara Habitat Agency, which require a buffer of 150 feet from waterways in locations and situations similar to the proposed project.
While wider riparian setbacks may be ideal, that does not mean that narrower setbacks automatically result in significant unmitigable impacts. The project would be constructed in compliance with the Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance, PAMC Section 18.40.140. Additionally, the proposed project is generally designed to avoid impacts to existing riparian habitat and the Los Trancos Creek corridor and the IS-MND provides avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures that would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. See also responses to comments
1.2 and 1.4 above.
Response 2.7
The commenters state that Palo Alto’s Stream Protection Ordinance requires a minimal setback of 20 feet, and the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Policy N3.3 Program N3.3.1 seeks to update this ordinance by implementing a desire for a 150-foot buffer in locations west of Foothill Expressway. 38 ITEM 13
Attachment G Responses to
Comments on the Draft IS-MND
Item 13:
Page
335
Packet Page 765 of 792
City of Palo Alto
575 Los Trancos Road Residential Project Responses to Comments on the Draft IS-MND
Final Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration
The commenters claim that the 20-foot setback is inappropriate and would result in significant and unavoidable impacts to Los Trancos Creek and the San Francisquito creek watershed.
Please see response to Comment 2.6 above.
Response 2.8
The commenters disagree with the City’s determination that the property is “relatively narrow.” The commenters suggest that the City should require a smaller footprint of development, a change in design to allow for a wider setback, or allow for the removal of trees to protect the creek’s riparian corridor.
Please see responses 2.3 and 2.6.
Response 2.9
The commenters state an opinion that the property’s zoning designation does not allow residential development and that the proposed project is not consistent with preserving and enhancing corridors of riparian vegetation along streams as intended by the SOS designation.
The proposed project site has a Comprehensive Plan land use designation of Streamside Open Space (SOS) and a zoning designation of Open Space (OS) inside a “streamside review area” as defined in Section 18.40.140 (Stream Corridor Protection) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). The SOS land use designation does not specifically allow for or preclude residential development. However, the OS zoning designation permits single-family dwellings pursuant to Section 18.28.040 of the PAMC. The City of Palo also has full discretion to determine whether residential development is allowed on the site.
Response 2.10
The commenters state that according to the Geotechnical Engineering Study, the proposed structure is located “80 feet from Los Trancos Creek” and bases its recommendations on that measurement. The commenters question whether the creek channel or the center line of the creek is at a distance of 60 feet from the top of the bank and claim that if the channel is located 60 feet from top of bank, then the setback required by the Palo Alto Stream Protection Ordinance should be 120 feet.
Section 18.40.140(b)(3)(a) of the PAMC (Stream Corridor Protection) states that “the slope stability protection area shall extend to a point 20 feet landward from the top of bank or to a point measured at a ratio of 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) landward from the toe of bank, whichever is greater.” This refers to a 2:1 horizontal setback to bank width. The Geotechnical Engineering Study states that the bank is 10 feet high. Therefore, a 2:1 horizontal (setback) to vertical (bank height) is 20 feet. This is measured from the toe of bank rather than the 20 feet from top of bank. No changes to the IS-MND are warranted.
Response 2.11
The commenters request that the city require consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) to ensure that impacts to steelhead habitat are mitigated. The commenters also suggest that direct impacts from the 20 feet 39 ITEM 13
Attachment G Responses to
Comments on the Draft IS-MND
Item 13:
Page
336
Packet Page 766 of 792
City of Palo Alto
575 Los Trancos Road Residential Project Responses to Comments on the Draft IS-MND
Final Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration
buffer, as well as impacts from access roads, parking, and lighting should be addressed and mitigated.
The project would be in compliance with the Stream Corridor Protection Ordinance, PAMC Section
18.40.140. Additionally, the project is generally designed to avoid direct impacts to aquatic habitat and the riparian corridor including Critical Habitat and potentially jurisdictional areas. Indirect impacts would be avoided through implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-3. The City would require adherence to PAMC Section 18.40.140(B)(3) requiring shielding of the creek from lighting.
Implementation of these requirements would limit intrusion into the riparian corridor and impacts to steelhead habitat would be avoided. Finally, the City provided an opportunity for state agencies to comment on the IS-MND through the State Clearinghouse’s Notice of Completion process; no comments from state agencies were received. No changes to the IS-MND are warranted.
Response 2.12
The commenter states an opinion that the project vicinity contains the Central Coast North population of mountain lions, that creek corridors are important for the migration of these species, and that mountain lions tend to avoid areas with human disturbance including residential developments that introduce noise and activities as well as light at night.
Please see responses to comments 1.4 and 2.6 above.
Response 2.13
The commenter states an opinion that the proposed mitigation regarding San Francisco dusky- footed woodrats in the IS-MND would be ineffective at protecting the woodrats. The commenters request the usage of mitigation measures in the Stanford Community Plan.
The mitigation measures in the IS-MND are substantially the same as proposed in the Stanford Community Plan
Response 2.14
The commenters claim that the project is inconsistent with Goal N-3, policies N-3.1, N-3.4, N-1.5, and N-1.6 of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan because setback requirements of the project do not provide sufficient protection to Los Trancos Creek. The commenters suggest that the project would have a significant and unavoidable impact on wildlife movement.
As discussed above under responses 1.4 and 2.6, the project would comply with setback requirements pursuant to Section 18.40.140(b)(3)(a) of the PAMC and require adherence to PAMC Section 18.40.140(B)(3) requiring shielding of the creek from lighting. Additionally, as discussed in Section 4, Biological Resources, of the IS-MND, the project is designed to generally avoid impacts to the riparian corridor, and Mitigation Measure BIO-3 requires fencing of the creek setback zone.
Implementation of these requirements would limit intrusion into the riparian corridor and potential impacts to the movement of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife and established wildlife corridors would be less than significant and consistent with the goals and policies mentioned in the comment letter.
No changes to the IS-MND are warranted.
40 ITEM 13
Attachment G Responses to
Comments on the Draft IS-MND
Item 13:
Page
337
Packet Page 767 of 792
City of Palo Alto
575 Los Trancos Road Residential Project Responses to Comments on the Draft IS-MND
Final Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration
Response 2.15
The commenters express that Los Trancos Creek and its tributaries and function in the San Francisquito Creek watershed require special attention to wildlife connectivity. The commenters state an opinion that the IS-MND does not discuss, analyze, or substantiate the conclusion that impacts would not be significant.
A discussion of wildlife movement, migratory corridors, and nursery sites has been added in Section 4, Biological Resources, of the IS-MND, under checklist item d. See Response 1.4. No additional changes to the IS-MND are warranted.
Response 2.16
The commenters state an opinion that the introduction of human activity during the day and lighting (including outdoor) at night could potentially substantially interfere with the movement of every native resident and migratory fish and wildlife species in the region and impede the use of native fish and bat nursery sites. Additionally, the commenter suggests that outdoor lighting would not be consistent with Program N3.3.3 of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan due to the 20-foot setback.
A discussion of lighting has been added in Section 4, Biological Resources, under checklist item a, as follows:
New lighting introduced on the project site could have an adverse effect on animal species in the creek corridor if not properly limited and controlled. PAMC Section 18.40.140(B)(3) requires that “Nighttime lighting shall be directed away from the riparian corridor of a stream” and that “The distance between nighttime lighting and the riparian corridor of a stream should be maximized.” A lighting plan submitted by the applicant shows shielding on exterior safety lighting and shades to limit interior lighting spillover toward the creek. The City would require adherence to PAMC Section 18.40.140(B)(3) during final review of project lighting prior to issuance of building permits. Implementation of these requirements would limit light intrusion into the creek corridor and associated impacts would be avoided.
A discussion of wildlife movement, migratory corridors, and nursery sites has been added under checklist item d. See Response 1.4. No additional changes to the IS-MND are warranted.
Response 2.17
The commenters claim that bird collision with glass is a cumulative, significant impact, and that the proposed project would contribute to this cumulative impact on birds and should be required to apply bird safety measures.
Bird collisions with glass and light traps are a leading cause of migratory bird mortality. Project approvals would require adherence to PAMC Section 18.40.140(B)(3) requiring shielding of the creek from lighting and Section 18.40.250 requiring exterior lighting to be low intensity and designed to focus light downward, avoiding excessive illumination above the light fixture. The proposed project is also located outside of the riparian movement corridor. In considering past, present, and probable future projects in the City of Palo Alto, with implementation of the above requirements the project’s incremental effect is not considered cumulatively considerable.
However, the commenters’ recommendation to apply bird-safe design measures will be forwarded to the City’s decision makers. No changes to the IS-MND are warranted. 41 ITEM 13
Attachment G Responses to
Comments on the Draft IS-MND
Item 13:
Page
338
Packet Page 768 of 792
City of Palo Alto
575 Los Trancos Road Residential Project Responses to Comments on the Draft IS-MND
Final Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration
Response 2.18
The commenters state that the proposed project is located in a fire-prone area and opine that additional analysis and mitigation measures are needed to ensure safety during construction and operation of the project. The commenters claim that the one-mile distance to the nearest Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) is not a significant distance given wind driven fires in California.
Wildfire significance thresholds as outlined under CEQA Appendix G require analysis of projects “located in or near a state responsibility area or land classified as very high fire hazard severity zones.” As discussed in Section 20, Wildfire, of the IS-MND, the project site is not located in a Local Responsibility Area (LRA) or State Responsibility Area (SRA) Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). Although the project would be located somewhat near (one mile) a VHFHSZ, as discussed in Section 20, Wildfire, the proposed project would be required to comply with Policy S-2.14 of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan which would require fire protection design in new development and ensure adequate emergency access for the PAFD. This includes requiring fire sprinkler protection in all structures and installing a National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 13-D fire sprinkler system throughout the house, including closets and bathrooms. The project would also be required to comply with wildland urban interface (WUI) requirements pursuant to the 2019 California Residential Code and Chapter 15 of the PAMC which include requirements for vegetation management; roofing; vents; exterior walls; eaves; exterior porch ceilings, floor projections, underfloor protection, underside of appendages; windows, skylights and doors; garages; decking; and accessory structures, and would also be located in proximity to three fire hydrants. Additionally, the proposed project would be consistent with truck turning radius requirements from the Palo Alto Fire Department, which would not impact emergency plans. Given compliance with existing State and local regulations, the project would ensure safety during both construction and operation and would have less than significant impacts on wildfire.
42 ITEM 13
Attachment G Responses to
Comments on the Draft IS-MND
Item 13:
Page
339
Packet Page 769 of 792
Fro
m
Steve Henry
805 Los Trancos Rd
Palo Alto, CA 94028
To
Emily
Foley, AICP
Planner City of Palo Alto Development and Planning Services [email protected]
Dat
e
August 25, 2022
RE
Prop
osed new home 575 Los Trancos Rd Palo alto
Jo
hn and Dee Ann Suppes have met with me regarding the design of their proposed new home adjacent to us. We reviewed there plans and feel the home will blend in well to environment and landscape. They also took care to provide additional screening separating our homes. We support their new home project and welcome them to the neighborhood.
Sinc
erely,
Ste
ve Henry
43 Letter 3
ITEM 13
Attachment G Responses to
Comments on the Draft IS-MND
Item 13:
Page
340
Packet Page 770 of 792
City of Palo Alto
575 Los Trancos Road Residential Project Responses to Comments on the Draft IS-MND
Final Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration
Letter 3
COMMENTER: Steve Henry
DATE: August 25, 2022
Response 1.1
The commenter states support for the project. This comment is noted but does not pertain to the analysis or conclusions of the Draft IS-MND.
44 ITEM 13
Attachment G Responses to
Comments on the Draft IS-MND
Item 13:
Page
341
Packet Page 771 of 792
1 5
1 7
City Council
STAFF REPORT
From: City Manager
Report Type: ACTION ITEM
Lead Department: Public Works
Meeting Date: January 23, 2023
Title
Review and Provide Direction on Wage and Benefits Requirements for Inclusion in a New Janitorial Services Request for Proposal (RFP)
Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council review and provide direction on the wage and benefits requirements for the new Janitorial Services Request for Proposal (RFP).
Executive Summary
Staff is seeking Council direction on wage and benefit requirements for inclusion in a new janitorial services RFP that will solicit proposals to service City facilities. To assist Council in the discussion, options are presented for further input.
Wage and benefit requirement options:
Option 1 City-Determined Wages/Benefits: Total wage and benefits of $20.84 (estimated)
Option 2 PUC Prevailing Wage/Benefits: Total wage and benefits of $29.98 Option 3 PUC + Union Wage/Benefits: Total wage and benefits of $29.98 or higher
Adding two additional janitorial job classifications for a total of seven classifications with higher pay requirements for more demanding or highly skilled work
Councilmember Burt and Vice Mayor Stone, through a Colleagues Memo, have recommended that a new janitorial contractor be required to provide PUC prevailing wages and benefits at a minimum and require employees be covered by a collective bargaining agreement.
ITEM 14
Staff Report
Item 14:
Page
1 Packet Page 772 of 792
1 5
1 7
This item was originally agendized for Council’s November 14, 2022 meeting but was continued.
To avoid a gap in janitorial services, Council approved an amendment to extend the current contract by six months. The new contract expiration date is August 31, 2023. Council direction on RFP wage and benefit requirements is critical to proceeding with the RFP. Following the RFP process, staff will bring forward a new contract for Council consideration in spring 2023.
Background
The City’s current janitorial services contract expires on August 31, 2023. The contract was for a five-year term beginning in 2017, with six-month extensions approved by Council in June 2022[1] and December 2022 [2]. Past janitorial contractors struggled to meet the City’s contract performance standards. As part of the 2017 procurement, staff placed greater emphasis on meeting performance solutions and adequate staffing levels. As part of the 2017 RFP requirements and evaluation process, staff recognized that emphasis on characteristics such as paying a higher wage and provision of health care and paid time off benefits would support the goals of a more reliable and higher performing work force. The current contractor proposed the highest employee hourly wage, provided paid time off, and health and welfare benefits to their employees. Wages and benefits were included in the contract terms given their importance in determination of the successful bidder. The improvement from previous contractors has been dramatic. The contract custodial staffing has been well-managed by the current contractor, with a significantly improved employee retention rate. Staff receives infrequent to no complaints of service levels, a significant improvement from the daily complaints of missed or poor services experienced with prior service providers.
Discussion
An RFP to solicit responses for janitorial services has been drafted and is ready for issuance pending refinements as directed by the City Council as part of this item. The RFP retains key changes from the 2017 RFP model to eliminate past contractor performance issues and focus on quality and consistency of services by: requiring a minimum level of staffing, requiring a minimum level of management, and requiring a minimum cost for material and supplies to help contractors bid the job more accurately.
In addition to the continuation of 2017 RFP requirements, the current draft RFP specifies two new requirements:
1. Baseline wage and benefit requirements for the contract: This provides a degree of transparency in the proposers’ cost structure, clarity of objectives, and hopefully ensures meeting goals of high retention rates as currently have been experienced.
ITEM 14
Staff Report
Item 14:
Page
2 Packet Page 773 of 792
1 5
1 7
2. Defines two proposed additional janitorial job classifications for a total of seven classifications: This provides higher wage requirements for more demanding or highly skilled work (see Table 1 below).
Wage requirements, referenced as ‘City-determined Wages’ in Table 1, are essentially a continuation of the wages required by the current contract. For example, the current contract hourly wage for the Custodian classification is $17.39, while the hourly wage contemplated for the RFP is $17.50. This figure could be adjusted higher based on CPI. This remains in compliance with the City’s minimum wage effective January 1, 2023 of $17.25 per hour.
Staff has also considered requiring proposers to include alternative pricing based on the California Public Utilities Code (PUC) prevailing wage for Janitor/Cleaner work in Santa Clara County (Attachment A). While the PUC prevailing wage requirements do not legally apply to the City’s janitorial services, they can be used to define a standard for wages and benefits for this work in Santa Clara County, albeit only for the single job classification of Janitor/Cleaner.
Concurrently, Councilmember Burt and Vice Mayor Stone have submitted a Colleagues Memo on this topic. The Colleagues Memo recommends that the new janitorial contractor be required to provide PUC prevailing wages and benefits at a minimum and have employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement.
Table 1 provides a comparison of hourly wage options for the new janitorial RFP. The PUC prevailing wage is only defined for “Janitor/Cleaner”, so it would apply to all of the custodian classifications that have been defined by the City. If Council directs that wages and benefits be based on the PUC prevailing wage, staff could also develop wage requirements for the classifications other than Custodian, using the PUC prevailing wage for Custodian as a basis. The hourly wage for Union janitorial employees where the wage must be equal to or greater than the PUC prevailing wage is not known, as it would be dependent on specific collective bargaining agreements. Consistent with the current contract, staff expects to include a proposed wage requirement of 3% annual wage increases over the five-year term, or to require increases in alignment with the PUC prevailing wage.
ITEM 14
Staff Report
Item 14:
Page
3 Packet Page 774 of 792
1 5
1 7
Table 1: Comparison of Janitorial Worker Hourly Wage Options Applicable in May 2023 Classification City-determined
Wages*
PUC Prevailing
Wage
PUC + Union
Wage
Custodian $17.50 $20.00 $20.00 or higher
Parking Garage Custodian $19.50 $20.00 $20.00 or higher Parks Custodian $19.50 $20.00 $20.00 or higher
Utility Custodian $21.50 $20.00 $20.00 or higher
Lead Custodian $22.50 $20.00 $20.00 or higher
Police Department Custodian $25.50 $20.00 $20.00 or higher Supervisor $30.50 n/a unknown
*Classifications and wages developed by staff for the current draft RFP.
In addition to minimum hourly wages, the City’s current contract and the PUC prevailing wage require benefits such as time off and healthcare plans. Table 2 compares the total wages and benefits, expressed as an hourly total, for the three potential RFP options. Similar to the hourly wages comparison in Table 1, the wages and benefits for the for Union janitorial employees where wages and benefits must be equal to or greater than the PUC prevailing wage is not known, as they would be dependent on specific collective bargaining agreements.
Table 2: Comparison of Janitorial Worker Custodian Classification Wages and Benefits Expressed on an Hourly Wage Basis Applicable in May 2023
May-23
City-determined
Wages/Benefits
PUC Prevailing
Wage/Benefits
PUC + Union
Wage/Benefits
Hourly Staff Cost Wage $17.50 $20.00 $20.00 or higher
Sick & Vacation Benefits $0.34 $0.81 $0.81 or higher
1-week PTO 5-10 days vacation, 3
days sick
5-10 days vacation,
3 days sick or more
ITEM 14
Staff Report
Item 14:
Page
4 Packet Page 775 of 792
1 5
1 7
Holiday $0 $0.46 $0.46 or higher
no paid holidays 4 holidays 4 holidays or more
Health & Welfare $3.00* $8.25 $8.25 or higher
Only after 24 months
of service
After 24 months of
service or earlier
Pension $0 $0.30 $0.30 or higher
401k optional
Leadership & Education $0 $0.09 $0.09 or higher
other training
Other Payment $0 $0.07 $0.07 or higher
Industry
Investigation Fund
Total Wage & Benefits $20.84 $29.98 $29.98 or higher
% Increase from “City-
determined
Wages/Benefits” n/a 44% 44% or higher
* Estimated based on Health & Welfare benefits provided under current contract.
As demonstrated in Table 2, transitioning to PUC prevailing wages results in an estimated 44 percent increase in labor costs for the janitorial service provider. Transitioning to PUC prevailing wages as a minimum with Union representation results in an estimated minimum 44 percent increase, dependent on the terms of the collective bargaining agreement.
It is possible for staff to proceed with the RFP requesting alternative pricing for more than one level of required wage and benefits. However, should Council direct the RFP to require a collective bargaining agreement, staff would recommend this be stated as a proposal requirement as individual proposers would likely either meet this requirement or not.
ITEM 14
Staff Report
Item 14:
Page
5 Packet Page 776 of 792
1 5
1 7
Timeline
The current contract expires on August 31, 2023. Once staff receives Council direction on RFP wage and benefit requirements, staff will proceed with the RFP process, and will bring a new contract to Council for consideration in spring 2023.
Resource Impact
Funding for the current contract extended through August 31, 2023 (approximately $2.5 million annually) was appropriated as part of the Fiscal Year 2023 Adopted Budget, with funding for July and August 2023 subject to the Council’s appropriation of Fiscal Year 2024 funding. Based on input from Council regarding the wage and benefits requirements for the RFP, additional funding is expected to be needed and will be requested for appropriation when staff returns to Council to recommend contract award. Adjustments to the funding for this contract will also be recommended for alignment with the approved contract as part of the annual budget process for subsequent fiscal years, subject to the Council’s appropriation of funding. Council may also question the comparison of the costs described above with an alternative of providing janitorial services with City employees. A preliminary review indicates that an in-house alternative would cost at least 40 percent higher than the highest cost alternative shown here.
Policy Implications
The City does not have a practice of including discretionary wage and benefit requirements in its solicitations for services. Council direction for this janitorial contract RFP may lead to the conclusion that other services should have similar requirements.
Stakeholder Engagement
Staff is seeking direction from Council on wage and benefits requirements for the new RFP, and will conduct industry outreach based on direction received.
Environmental Review
No environmental review is required.
ITEM 14
Staff Report
Item 14:
Page
6 Packet Page 777 of 792
1 5
1 7
[1] City Council Staff Report June 2022 ID# 14161 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/public- works/facilities/sr-14161-amendment-to-extend-term-with-swa-services-group-inc_1.pdf [2] City Council Staff Report December 2022 ID#14820 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas- minutes-reports/reports/city-manager-reports-cmrs/2022/id.-14820-approval-of-amendment-no.-3-with-swa- services-group-inc.-swa.pdf
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Prevailing Wage Sheet
Report #:
ITEM 14
Staff Report
Item 14:
Page
7 Packet Page 778 of 792
3 3
5 Attachment A
GENERAL PREVAILING WAGE DETERMINATION MADE BY THE DIRECTOR OF
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE, SECTIONS 465, 466 AND 467
Determination: STC-2021-1Reference: 22-1877-2
Issue Date of Determination: December 22, 2021Supersedes Det: STC- 2019-1
Expiration Date of Determination: April 30, 2024*. Effective until superseded by a new determination issued by the Director of Industrial Relations. Contact the Office of the Director – Research Unit at (415) 703-4774 for the new rates after ten days from the expiration date if no subsequent determination is issued.
Locality: Santa Clara County
Craft: Janitor/Cleaner
Wage Rates: Classification Basic Straight-Time Hourly Rate Janitor/Cleaner Expires 4/30/2022 $18.25
Effective 5/1/2022 $19.25
Effective 5/1/2023 $20.00
Employer Payments: (Public Utilities Code Section 465)
Health & Welfare:$8.25 per hour after 24 months of service.
Paid Holidays:Five (5) holidays per year or $0.35 per hour after 60 days of service. Effective 5/1/2022 Five (5) holidays per year or $0.37 per hour after 60 days of service. Effective 1/1/2023 Six (6) holidays per year or $0.44 per hour after 60 days of service. Effective 5/1/2023 Six (6) holidays per year or $0.46 per hour after 60 days of service. Effective 1/1/2024 Seven (7) holidays per year or $0.54 per hour after 60 days of service.
Pension:$0.15 per hour after 90 days of service.
Effective 5/1/2023 $0.30 per hour after 90 days of service.
Paid Vacation:Five (5) days after 1 year of service or $0.35 per hour Ten (10) days after 3 years of
service or $0.70 per hour
Fifteen (15) days after 12 years of service or $1.05 per hour.
Effective 5/1/2022 Five (5) days after 1 year of service or $0.37 per hour Ten (10) days after 3 years of service or $0.74 per
hour Fifteen (15) days after 12 years of service or
$1.11 per hour.
Effective 5/1/2023 Five (5) days after 1 year of service or $0.38 per hour Ten (10) days after 3 years of service or $0.77 per
hour Fifteen (15) days after 10 years of service or
$1.15 per hour.
Paid Sick Leave:Three (3) days or $0.21 per hour.
Effective 5/1/2022 Three (3) days or $0.22 per hour.
Effective 5/1/2023 Three (3) days or $0.23 per hour.
ITEM 14
Attachment A - Prevailing Wage
Sheet
Item 14:
Page
8 Packet Page 779 of 792
3 3
5 Training:$0.075 per hour.
Effective 5/1/2022 $0.08 per hour.
Effective 5/1/2023 $0.085 per hour.
Other Payment: $0.05 per hour to Industry Investigation Fund.
Effective 5/1/2022 $0.06 per hour to Industry Investigation Fund.
Effective 5/1/2023 $0.07 per hour to Industry Investigation Fund.
Bereavement Leave: Three (3) days paid leave and covers immediate family members (mother, father, spouse, son, daughter, brother, sister, grandmother, grandfather, grandson, granddaughter, and registered domestic partner).
Recognized Holidays: New Year’s Day, 4th of July, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. If a holiday falls on a Sunday, it shall be observed on the following Monday. If a holiday falls on a Saturday, it shall be observed either on Friday or Saturday as determined by the employer. Effective 2023, add Memorial Day. Effective 2024, add President’s Day.
Straight-time Hours: Eight (8) hours per day. A week’s work shall consist of five (5) consecutive days.
Overtime Rate: All work performed in excess of 8 hours per day and on the 6th day shall be paid at one and one- half times (1½) the basic hourly rate. All work performed on the 7th day shall be paid double (2x) the straight-time hourly rate. Work on a holiday shall be paid at one and one-half (1½) times the basic hourly rate in addition to the regular day’s pay.
Travel and Subsistence: Employees required to furnish own vehicle between locations shall be reimbursed at the rate of the standard IRS mileage rate.
ITEM 14
Attachment A - Prevailing Wage
Sheet
Item 14:
Page
9 Packet Page 780 of 792
CITY COUNCIL
COLLEAGUE’S MEMO
Sponsor(s): Greer Stone, Patrick Burt
Meeting Date: January 23, 2023
TITLE
Responsible Contracting Standards Colleague's Memo (Stone & Burt)
BACKGROUND
On March 21, 2022, speakers at the City Council meeting raised concerns over labor conditions and wages associated with the City’s third-party contract for janitorial services provided to the City of Palo Alto. On July 14, 2022, the San Jose Spotlight released an article detailing allegations of wage theft made by seven janitors that clean City facilities. left unaddressed, the City faces the potential risk for labor disruption, interruption of services, and turnover of its essential workforce. In addition, the city has a moral obligation to assure that the rights are protected of workers performing contracted services to the city.
Background and Discussion:
In 2017, the City awarded its current janitorial services contract. As part of the bidding process, City staff recommended the adoption of evaluation criteria to address issues with turnover and low-quality performance. On March 21, 2022, speakers at the City Council meeting raised concerns over labor conditions and wages associated with the contract. These concerns included failure to pay contract wages, failure to provide a clear “Paid Time Off” or vacation policy, failure to provide necessary materials to perform job duties, failure to reimburse expenses and mileage, failure to provide safety training or personal protective equipment, and failure to provide sufficient staffing.[1]
On September 15, 2022, Congresswoman Anna Eshoo wrote to Mayor Burt, recognizing “the prevalence of reported exploitation in the janitorial industry, employers must be vigilant to ensure that janitors are treated fairly.” Additionally, Congresswoman Eshoo encouraged the city to “take into consideration the labor practices of any janitorial contractor with which it engages.”[2] The City also received a letter on June 15, 2022, from State Senator Josh Becker, encouraging an investigation into allegations of wage theft, because “property service industries tend to have track records of high turnover, poor quality of service, and wage theft.
ITEM 14
Colleagues Memo
Item 14:
Page
10 Packet Page 781 of 792
These issues are particularly prevalent in the janitorial industry where exploitation, sexual harassment, and violations of wage and hour laws are commonplace.”[3] Assemblymember Berman also urged Palo Alto to “adopt a higher level of standards for these subcontracted services.”[4]
On July 14, 2022, the San Jose Spotlight released an article detailing the allegations of wage theft made by seven janitors that clean City facilities. The article cited a report by the Maintenance Cooperation and Trust Fund, a janitorial industry watchdog organization, which describes the predominantly female Hispanic janitorial workforce as “especially vulnerable” dealing with “greater hardships than many other types of low-wage”[5] workers. The article also made reference to a situation in 2019 at the City of Fremont, which faced a two day labor stoppage after janitors had a dispute over medical benefits. The article also referenced how Mountain View recently adopted stricter standards to protect their subcontracted janitorial workforce.[6] On January 28, 2020, the City of Mountain View adopted a motion that required its Janitorial Services RFP to include that the awarded vendor be a firm whose employees are covered by a collective bargaining agreement, janitors receive wages no less than the prevailing wage as listed under the California Public Utilities Code, and that the State Labor Code’s worker retention period be extended from 60 to 90 days.[7]
Recommendation:
As a City, we have an interest in ensuring we have uninterrupted operations, high quality services, and that contracted workers performing services for the city are treated fairly. We recommend the City Council direct staff to address the issues facing the City’s subcontracted janitors by developing a policy that would heighten standards where needed within the Janitorial Services RFP for the City Council to adopt for the upcoming and future such RFPs. This policy should establish standards similar to those adopted by the City of Mountain View per below:
“That the successful proposer be a firm whose employees are covered by a collective bargaining agreement prior to the effective date of contract and that any individual performing janitorial services for the City be paid no less than the prevailing wage and benefits established for janitorial services pursuant to the California Public Utilities Code and set by the Department of Industrial Relations.
That the higher wage rates and/or benefits will be paid should the collective bargaining agreement’s wages and benefits and the prevailing wage and benefits differ.
That the State Labor Code’s worker retention period be extended from 60 to 90 days.” Resource Implications:
Independent of this Colleagues Memo, staff has been evaluating options related to wage requirements for the upcoming janitorial services Request for Proposals (RFP). Given the time sensitivity of this issue in order to initiate a new contract for services, staff will present their analysis to the City Council at the same time this Colleagues Memo is considered.
ITEM 14
Colleagues Memo
Item 14:
Page
11 Packet Page 782 of 792
[1] City of Palo Alto, “Council Consent Agenda Responses,” June 20, 2022. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/council- questions/20220620cqccs.pdf
[2] Congresswoman Anna Eshoo Letter, September 15, 2022. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1U5fZAzM3u5tLZf- rZFpZZBofUJ8BynO0/view?usp=sharing
[3] Senator Josh Becker letter, June 15, 2022.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/14ZFpJNfSYmwT3Wznba3fTJzIC82vmgDc/view?usp=sharing [4] Assemblymember Marc Berman letter, July 20, 2022. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GeYSYxkrLungCxWg- voHK3bHEuaHtmvL/view?usp=sharing
[5] “Janitors: The Pandemic’s Unseen Essential Workers,” Maintenance Cooperation Trust Fund, April 2021 [6] Ruth Silver Taube, “Palo Alto janitorial workers shed light on wage theft,” San Jose Spotlight, July 14, 2022. https://sanjosespotlight.com/silver-taube-palo-alto-janitorial-workers-shed-light-on-wage-theft/ [7] City of Mountain View, “Meeting Minutes - Final,” January 28, 2020.
ITEM 14
Colleagues Memo
Item 14:
Page
12 Packet Page 783 of 792
CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
From: City Manager
Report Type: INFORMATIONAL REPORT
Lead Department: Administrative Services
Meeting Date: January 23, 2023
TITLE
City of Palo Alto's Energy Risk Management Report for the Second Half of Fiscal Year 2022 (July 1, 2021-June 30, 2022)
RECOMMENDATION
This is an informational report and no City Council action is required.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff continues to purchase electricity and gas in compliance with the City’s Energy Risk Management Policies, Guidelines, and Procedures. This report is based on market prices and load and supply data as of June 30, 2022, the end of the annual report of Fiscal Year (FY) 2022.
The projected cost of the City’s fixed-price electricity purchases is $3.81 million lower than the market value of that electricity as of June 30, 2022 for the 12-month period beginning July 1, 2022. In the annual report of FY 2022 (July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022) the City’s credit exposure to fixed price contracts is minimal. The projected Electric Supply Operations Reserve is above the FY 2022 minimum guideline reserve level and the projected gas reserve is also above the FY 2022 guideline reserve level range.
There were no exceptions to the Energy Risk Management Policies, Guidelines, or Procedures during the annual report of FY 2022.
BACKGROUND
The purpose of this report is to inform the Council about the status of the City’s energy portfolio and transactions executed with energy suppliers for FY 2022. The City’s Energy Risk Management Policy requires that staff report on a semi-annual basis to Council on: 1) the City’s energy portfolio; 2) the City’s credit and market risk profile; 3) portfolio performance; and 4) other key market and risk information. This report covers both semi-annual reports for FY 2022.
The City’s Energy Risk Management Policy describes the management organization, authority, and processes to monitor, measure, and control market risks. “Market risks” include price and counterparty credit risk. These are risks that the City is exposed to on a regular basis in procuring electric supplies, and to a lesser extent for gas supplies which are purchased at ITEM 15
Staff Report
Item 15:
Page
1 Packet Page 784 of 792
market rates via a monthly index price. The City’s Energy Risk Management staff are located in the Treasury Division of the Administrative Services Department. Their role is to monitor and mitigate these risks.
This annual report of FY 2022 Energy Risk Management report contains information on the following:
•Electric Supplies
•Hydroelectricity
•Fixed-Price Forward Electricity Purchases
•Gas Supplies
•Credit Risk
•Electric Forward Mark-to-Market Values
•Electric and Gas Supply Operations Reserves Adequacy
•Exceptions to Energy Risk Management Policies, Guidelines, or Procedures
ANALYSIS
Electric Supplies
In order to serve the City’s electric supply demands, the City obtains electricity from:
hydroelectric resources (from Western and Calaveras Hydroelectric Projects); long-term renewable energy contracts (from landfill gas converted to electricity, wind, and solar projects); wholesale purchases which are carried out via fixed-priced forward market purchase contracts; and the electric spot market.
Figure 1 below illustrates the projected sources and expected purchases of electricity supplies by month for the 36 months from July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2025, in megawatt-hours (MWh). The negative bars represent sales of excess power on the wholesale market.
ITEM 15
Staff Report
Item 15:
Page
2 Packet Page 785 of 792
Hydroelectricity
The cost of hydroelectricity received from Western over the 12-month period ending June 30, 2022 is more than the market value of electricity by $1.0 million. Hydroelectric power from Calaveras was expected to cost $2.7 million (as of June 30, 2022) more than the market value of electricity. Note that Calaveras provides benefits not reflected in the mark-to-market (MTM, defined in the following section) calculation, including, for example, ancillary services (e.g., the ability to regulate energy output when the electric grid needs change), and that much of the above-market costs are related to debt service on the cost of constructing the dam. This debt is due to be retired in 2032, and retirement will substantially improve the value of the project relative to the market price of electricity.
Fixed-Price Forward Electricity Purchases
The City, as of June 30, 2022, has purchased and sold fixed-priced supplies of electricity for the next 12 months totaling 31,200 MWh with an average price of $43.72 per MWh and totaling 54,080 with an average price of $39.23 , respectively. The City contracted for these purchases with three of its approved counterparties: SENA (Shell Energy North America), Électricité de France (EDF), and NextEra Energy Resources. The 12-month MTM value of the City’s forward transactions for wholesale power was $3.81 million at the end of the annual report of FY 2022.
A positive MTM means that the sales price for these transactions was lower than the market value as of June 30, 2022. The City tracks the mark to market value of its forward contracts to measure the value that would be lost due to a counterparty failing to deliver on its contractual commitments, forcing the City to purchase replacement electricity in the market. The exposure - 4 0 , 0 0 0
- 2 0 , 0 0 0
0 2 0 , 0 0 0
4 0 , 0 0 0
6 0 , 0 0 0
8 0 , 0 0 0
1 0 0 , 0 0 0
1 2 0 , 0 0 0
1 4 0 , 0 0 0
Jul-22
Sep-22
Nov-22
Jan-23
Mar-23
May-23
Jul-23
Sep-23
Nov-23
Jan-24
Mar-24
May-24
Jul-24
Sep-24
Nov-24
Jan-25
Mar-25
May-25
M e g a w a t t H o u r s
F i g u r e 1 - E l e c t r i c B a l a n c e
W i n d
W h o l e s a l e
W e s t e r n
S o l a r
L a n d f i l l
C a l a v e r a s
T o t a l L o a d
ITEM 15
Staff Report
Item 15:
Page
3 Packet Page 786 of 792
listed above is well within risk management guidelines and presents little risk to the City’s financial outlook.
The figures below represent the electric forward volumes (Figure 2) and MTM positions (Figure 3) for each electric supplier by month of delivery for all forward fixed-price electricity contracts over the 12-month period ending June 30, 2023.
- 3 0 , 0 0 0
- 2 0 , 0 0 0
- 1 0 , 0 0 0
0 1 0 , 0 0 0
2 0 , 0 0 0
3 0 , 0 0 0
4 0 , 0 0 0
5 0 , 0 0 0
6 0 , 0 0 0
07/01/22
08/01/22
09/01/22
10/01/22
11/01/22
12/01/22
01/01/23
02/01/23
03/01/23
04/01/23
05/01/23
06/01/23
M e g a w a t t H o u r s
F i g u r e 2 - E l e c t r i c F o r w a r d V o l u m e s e n d i n g a s o f 0 6 / 3 0 / 2 3 E D F
S E N A
N e x t E r a E n e r g y R e s o u r c e s
( 2 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 )
( 1 , 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 )
( 1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 )
( 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 )
-
5 0 0 , 0 0 0
1 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0
1 , 5 0 0 , 0 0 0
2 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0
2 , 5 0 0 , 0 0 0
3 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0
Jul-22
Aug-22
Sep-22
Oct-22
Nov-22
Dec-22
Jan-23
Feb-23
Mar-23
Apr-23
May-23
Jun-23
M T M D o l l a r A m o u n t
F i g u r e 3 - E l e c t r i c M a r k - t o - M a r k e t V a l u e s e n d i n g a s o f 0 6 / 3 0 / 2 3 E D F
S E N A
N e x t E r a E n e r g y R e s o u r c e s
ITEM 15
Staff Report
Item 15:
Page
4 Packet Page 787 of 792
Gas Supplies
In order to serve the City’s natural gas needs, the City purchases gas on the monthly and daily spot markets. The City purchases all of its forecasted gas needs for the month ahead at a price based on the published monthly spot market index price for that month. Within the month, the City’s gas operator buys and sells gas to match the City’s daily needs if the actual daily usage is different from the forecasted daily usage. Those daily transactions are made at an average price based on the published daily spot market index. These costs are passed through directly to customers using a monthly rate adjustment mechanism, leaving the City with little or no price risk or counterparty risk exposure for the gas utility.
Credit Risk
Staff monitors and reports on counterparty credit risk based on the major credit rating agencies (S&P and Moody’s) scores, Ameresco has a 1.79% Expected Default Frequency (EDF) which is higher than the recommended EDF level of 0.08%. Staff is continuing to monitor Ameresco’s EDF and will continue to report to City Council in this semi-annual report. Table 1 below shows the EDF values for the City’s renewable energy counterparties. Table 2 below shows the EDF values and credit exposure for the City’s electric suppliers. There is virtually no credit exposure to the City’s gas suppliers since the supplies are purchased on a short-term basis.
Table 1 - Renewable Counterparties Credit Ratings and EDFs as of 06/30/22 Table 2 - Credit Exposure and Expected Default Frequency of Electric Suppliers as of 06/30/22 Current
Expected
Default
Frequency
Moody's
(EDF)
Implied
Rating
Ameresco 1.79% B3
0.03% A2
Source: CreditEdge website
Renewable Counterparty
Avangrid (fomerly Iberdrola)
Electric
Counterparty
Cost
of Transaction
Market Value
of Transaction
Current
Expected
Default
Frequency
Moody's
(EDF)
Implied
Rating
NextEra 3,671,537$ 318,564$ 0.026% Aa3
SENA 507,600 273,660 0.524% Baa1
EDF (1,312,800) (1,531,066) n/a n/a
Totals 2,866,337$ (938,841)$
(872)(3,352,973)$
(3,805,178)$ (2,098)$
Cost vs.
Market
(MTM) Value
S
&
P
C
r
e
Expected Loss
(MTM x
Expected
Default
Frequency)
(233,940)AA- (1,226)
(218,266) -
A-
ITEM 15
Staff Report
Item 15:
Page
5 Packet Page 788 of 792
Electric Forward Mark-to-Market Values
It is important to note that, for contracts with renewable energy companies, Council waived the investment grade credit rating requirement of Section 2.30.340(d) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, which applies to energy companies that do business with the City. In addition, the City does not pay for renewable energy until it is received, thereby reducing risk.
An EDF of 0.08% or below indicate supplier’s current expected default frequency falls within the investment grade range. An EDF above 0.08% indicates the supplier may have financial issues that require monitoring.
Electric and Gas Supply Operations Reserves Adequacy
As shown in Table 3 below, the Electric Supply Operations reserve’s audited balance as of June 30, 2022 is $30.1 million, which is $12.1 million above the minimum reserve guideline level. The audited Gas Operations reserve balance is $12.1 million, which is $5.6 million above the minimum reserve guideline level.
Table 3 - Electric Supply Operations and Gas Operations Reserve Levels for FY 2022 Exceptions to Energy Risk Management Policies, Guidelines, or Procedures There were no exceptions to the Energy Risk Management Policies, Guidelines, or Procedures to report during the annual report of FY 2022.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
This is an information report so will have no resource impact.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Staff works internally with the Utilities Department to prepare this report.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This informational report does not require Council action and therefore is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).CEQA Guidelines Section 15378).
This report is for informational purposes only with no action required by the Council Fund
Audited
Reserve for
Operations
Balance as
of 06/30/2021
($ Millions)
Changes
to the
Reserves
for
Operations
($ Millions)
Audited
Reserve for
Operations
Balance as
of 06/30/22
($ Millions)
Minimum
Guideline
Reserve
Level
($ Millions)
Maximum
Guideline
Reserve
Level
($ Millions)
Electric $29.9 $0.2 $30.1 $18.0 $36.0
Gas $12.0 $0.1 $12.1 $6.5 $13.0
FY 2022
ITEM 15
Staff Report
Item 15:
Page
6 Packet Page 789 of 792
ATTACHMENTS
None
APPROVED BY:
Kiely Nose, Administrative Services Director
Report #: 2301-0758
ITEM 15
Staff Report
Item 15:
Page
7 Packet Page 790 of 792
CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
From: City Clerk
Report Type: SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
Lead Department: City Clerk
Meeting Date: January 23, 2023
TITLE
Proclamation for Lunar New Year
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Proclamation
APPROVED BY:
Lesley Milton
Report #: 2301-0815
ITEM AA1
Staff Report
Item AA1: Page 1 Packet Page 791 of 792
Proclamation
__________________________
Lydia Kou
Mayor
LUNAR NEW YEAR 2023
WHEREAS, today we commemorate Lunar New Year and join families in California, Asia , and around the world in welcoming, for those following the Chinese zodiac, or similar zodiacs in other cultures, the Year of the Rabbit on January 22, and for the Vietnamese zodiac, the Year of the Cat; and WHEREAS, Lunar New Year, predominantly celebrated by millions of Asian and Pacific Islander (API) Californians of Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Filipino, Malaysian, Singaporean, and Vietnamese descent, is a time of joy and renewal; and
WHEREAS, on this special day, families cel ebrate and prepare for the arrival of a new year of good health and prosperity. As we look forward to a joyous new year, we proudly reflect on the contributions of API Californians who literally built California – from America’s first transcontinental railroad to the farms and small businesses foundational to our state’s economy; and
WHEREAS, locally in Palo Alto, Mr. Thomas Foon Chew, owner and innovative businessman for canning processing innovations preserving fruits and vegetables at the Bayside Cannery in Mayfield/Palo Alto also known to locals as the “Fry’s” building. Mr. Chew was also known for hiring workers from different ethnicities , providing housing and hot lunches for his Chinese laborers. In addition, we celebrate and acknowledge Pacific Islanders for decades providing quality and much-needed home care to many members in our community; and WHEREAS, we also recognize that discriminatory laws, xenophobic policies, misogyny, and mistreatment suffered by API Californians are a blight on our state’s history. We must also continue to call out and stand against the anti-Asian rhetoric and violence that increased du ring the COVID-19 pandemic. As Californians, we must reject past and present prejudice and embrace inclusion. Today, let us join our API friends and neighbors in celebration. As the door to the Year of the Rabbit/Cat opens, we wish good fortune, health and happiness to all those who celebrate.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Lydia Kou, Mayor of the City of Palo Alto on behalf of the entire City Council do hereby recognize and celebrate the Lunar New Year 2023, encourage California schools to take time to educate our students about the traditions of Lunar New Year and the past and present contributions of the API community in our state.
PRESENTED: January 23, 2023
ITEM AA1
Proclamation Lunar New Year 2023
Item AA1: Page 2 Packet Page 792 of 792